FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > No charges to be made
No charges to be made
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It's great to have a line drawn underneath it, so that the party which looks likely to be in government can be most effective for us " Exactly. And the outgoing party, noted for sleaze and corruption, which instigated police investigations against both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the incoming party has been shown yet again to be incompetent and just plain nasty. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Do we assume what the police were looking into brings this to an end, or would taxes owed as an example be dealt with by HMRC?" they have handed over to the council and HMRC. Council have confirmed no action. HMRCs clock has run out I believe. | |||
"Do we assume what the police were looking into brings this to an end, or would taxes owed as an example be dealt with by HMRC?they have handed over to the council and HMRC. Council have confirmed no action. HMRCs clock has run out I believe. " HMRC have a timed window to prosecute? | |||
| |||
"So, even though she's obviously guilty, she can't be prosecuted due to the time that's elapsed. " In light of that - it could be that the police worked on, the likelihood of successful prosecution is nil. We may never know. | |||
"Do we assume what the police were looking into brings this to an end, or would taxes owed as an example be dealt with by HMRC?they have handed over to the council and HMRC. Council have confirmed no action. HMRCs clock has run out I believe. HMRC have a timed window to prosecute? " I had in my head six years. Something just found. Imagine deliberate would be a harsh take given cops findings. The general time limits for income tax (and capital gains tax) are: •four years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by mistake despite taking reasonable care; •six years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by failing to take reasonable care; and •20 years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about deliberately by the taxpayer or a person acting on their behalf. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do we assume what the police were looking into brings this to an end, or would taxes owed as an example be dealt with by HMRC?they have handed over to the council and HMRC. Council have confirmed no action. HMRCs clock has run out I believe. HMRC have a timed window to prosecute? I had in my head six years. Something just found. Imagine deliberate would be a harsh take given cops findings. The general time limits for income tax (and capital gains tax) are: •four years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by mistake despite taking reasonable care; •six years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by failing to take reasonable care; and •20 years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about deliberately by the taxpayer or a person acting on their behalf." I have no idea why I have an accountant! I could have been making some mistakes over the last few years 
I have just read the BBC update which said a source told them she owes nothing, the conclusion was it needs to be a high bar for HMRC to take action. Reading what you have found, it easily falls into the right off clock.
| |||
"So, even though she's obviously guilty, she can't be prosecuted due to the time that's elapsed. Married couples can only count one property as their main residence. She was cynically playing the system." She may have spent money on her house prior to getting married which can legally be offset against any potential CGT liability. As she said she got advice and acted upon it. Complicated issue, not obvious she is guilty to anyone who understands CGT. I suspect you may not? | |||
"Do we assume what the police were looking into brings this to an end, or would taxes owed as an example be dealt with by HMRC?they have handed over to the council and HMRC. Council have confirmed no action. HMRCs clock has run out I believe. HMRC have a timed window to prosecute? I had in my head six years. Something just found. Imagine deliberate would be a harsh take given cops findings. The general time limits for income tax (and capital gains tax) are: •four years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by mistake despite taking reasonable care; •six years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about by failing to take reasonable care; and •20 years after the end of the tax year if the loss of tax was brought about deliberately by the taxpayer or a person acting on their behalf." Exactly this https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch51300 | |||
| |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze." should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? | |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze. should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? " Yes | |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze. should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? " The police knew in the first place it was not their duty to investigate, but they did, no idea why they did. But they gave all information they acquired to HMRC and stockport council. They have no statute limit so if they find wrong doing they can fine her. the tories should face some sanction but they won't times have changed where our leaders are no longer held to account if they do wrong, sorry is good enough these days. It is not often we get to hold them to account through an election but people are still voting for one or the other, so I cannot see politicians of any party not being corrupt, working for the interests of business when we should be at the top of the list. Not all of them are bad but due to those who are, they all get the same label. | |||
"So, even though she's obviously guilty, she can't be prosecuted due to the time that's elapsed. Married couples can only count one property as their main residence. She was cynically playing the system." She's not "obviously guilty' | |||
| |||
| |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze. should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? " . She is still under investigation by HMRC and the Council. Do you only want laws enforced for some and turn a blind eye to others ? She has refused to publish the legal advice which she given or the name of the firm who gave it . Hardly the actions of someone with a clear conscience. | |||
"A bit of a non story..." . It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. | |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze. should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? . She is still under investigation by HMRC and the Council. Do you only want laws enforced for some and turn a blind eye to others ? She has refused to publish the legal advice which she given or the name of the firm who gave it . Hardly the actions of someone with a clear conscience. " both council and HMRC aren't investigating further, at least, according to sky. 
Therefore, she's innocent in the eyes of those that matter.
Let alone needing to pay any fines. | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. " You can taste the salt  | |||
" She is still under investigation by HMRC " Not by HMRC anymore. https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-cleared-by-hmrc-over-claims-around-ex-council-house-sale-13145211 | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. " The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools... | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. You can taste the salt "Bitter, bitter tears | |||
"The accusation even if found to be true, the police couldn't charge her as the statute had passed, she knew she couldn't be arrested. It seems from the police statement they advise that it wasn't a case for them, but for stockport Council and HMRC, both of which all material has been handed over to. Political motivated yes as they would of known it wasn't a police matter. What the tories should of done was to ask for a review by stockport council, which they will not have to do as the police has done it for them. Just waste of time and money because a sleazy party want to pass on some of their sleaze. should the tory party be prosecuted for wasting police time? . She is still under investigation by HMRC and the Council. Do you only want laws enforced for some and turn a blind eye to others ? She has refused to publish the legal advice which she given or the name of the firm who gave it . Hardly the actions of someone with a clear conscience. " See above pat, Cat evolution's post.. Your welcome | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. " Hard agree. The nation in general is having this distraction story pumped into their feeds constantly. This will ramp up throughout June as we get closer to the election. Quick breeze over the news papers this morning and they're ramping up the "Labour did this", "Labour said that" rhetoric. | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools..." . At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken " Why don't you ask her as you obviously have bone to grind? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken " Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
| |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-cleared-by-hmrc-over-claims-around-ex-council-house-sale-13145211 HMRC agree" 
HMRC are NOT investigating any more, the matter is closed.
;-) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-cleared-by-hmrc-over-claims-around-ex-council-house-sale-13145211 HMRC agree
HMRC are NOT investigating any more, the matter is closed.
;-)"Indeed. I think the point that Pat is making, is that a portion of the electorate who will focus on stuff like this, and vote accordingly. | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
". Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-cleared-by-hmrc-over-claims-around-ex-council-house-sale-13145211 HMRC agree
HMRC are NOT investigating any more, the matter is closed.
;-)
Indeed. I think the point that Pat is making, is that a portion of the electorate who will focus on stuff like this, and vote accordingly. " | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
. Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events "Stop with your faux outrage
I asked you if you were totally stupid, had I wanted to call you that I simply would have..
And I would ask anyone the same if they had posted the complete nonsense that you have..
Asking for legal advice bears no reflection upon the person, it's a central core of the justice system..
Di you think with a team of 12 officers investigating the complaint they didn't think to speak to the neighbours?
| |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
. Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events
Stop with your faux outrage
I asked you if you were totally stupid, had I wanted to call you that I simply would have..
And I would ask anyone the same if they had posted the complete nonsense that you have..
Asking for legal advice bears no reflection upon the person, it's a central core of the justice system..
Di you think with a team of 12 officers investigating the complaint they didn't think to speak to the neighbours?
". Another interesting post referring to someone's post as complete nonsense. Just as well the majority of the public have manners and have no need to refer to other peoples opinions as nonsense. I usually rank my opinion against what f others think and have never found the necessity to make offensive comments against those with whom I disagree. I have always accepted that everyone is entitled to an opinion. To date Angela Rayner has never published the basis of the legal advice given. She could simply have scanned a copy and sent it to the press . The public could then make their own assessment. In addition she wants to prevent members of the public benefitting from a substantial council house discount from which she herself benefitted. In the circumstances her affairs warrant a much more detailed investigation than that of most people | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
. Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events
Stop with your faux outrage
I asked you if you were totally stupid, had I wanted to call you that I simply would have..
And I would ask anyone the same if they had posted the complete nonsense that you have..
Asking for legal advice bears no reflection upon the person, it's a central core of the justice system..
Di you think with a team of 12 officers investigating the complaint they didn't think to speak to the neighbours?
"But you got to hand it to Pat. He did reveal us something that should change all our views on this controversy. All lawyers want is the clients money. Am shocked, aren't you..? Need to start getting legal advice from my barber.. | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
. Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events
Stop with your faux outrage
I asked you if you were totally stupid, had I wanted to call you that I simply would have..
And I would ask anyone the same if they had posted the complete nonsense that you have..
Asking for legal advice bears no reflection upon the person, it's a central core of the justice system..
Di you think with a team of 12 officers investigating the complaint they didn't think to speak to the neighbours?
But you got to hand it to Pat. He did reveal us something that should change all our views on this controversy.
All lawyers want is the clients money.
Am shocked, aren't you..? Need to start getting legal advice from my barber.. "Am shocked and stunned that someone so worldly wise might not be aware.. Or it's just another of pat's double standards lol.. | |||
"A bit of a non story.... It might be to you but not to the nation in general. It received extensive coverage in a national newspaper. Angela Rayners verion of events is very different to that of her neighbours. The Tories accuse Rayner of wrong doing. The police, the Local Authority and HMRC all say she has done nothing wrong, no case to answer after fully investigating the Tories allegations. Who comes out of this looking better? Rayner or the Tories? People aren't fools.... At least the complaint was fully transparent and backed in detail by a version of events from various neighbours. It was analysed in detail in the national press. Angela Rayner did not comment in detail on the events but instead sought legal advice. Paying a solicitor for advice hardly helps resolve the matter. She failed to publish the basis of the advice given. Most solitary are more than happy to take money from her clients. If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you totally stupid? An investigation by the police so she sought legal advice, isn't that what legal advice is about..? And as you know full well there's been several Tory MPs who in the recent past have done exactly that as would I suggest anyone in that situation.. Maybe she could have approached you
. Thanks . Glad to be called totally stupid. I usually attempt to rank my opinions against what other members of society think , not those who call people stupid on social media but would be too afraid to call people that to their face . As the legal advice was never published how could anyone make an assessment of its validity . ? Any solicitor will accept an instruction to give legal advice. All they want is the clients money . Various neighbours of hers have a different version of events
Stop with your faux outrage
I asked you if you were totally stupid, had I wanted to call you that I simply would have..
And I would ask anyone the same if they had posted the complete nonsense that you have..
Asking for legal advice bears no reflection upon the person, it's a central core of the justice system..
Di you think with a team of 12 officers investigating the complaint they didn't think to speak to the neighbours?
. Another interesting post referring to someone's post as complete nonsense.
Just as well the majority of the public have manners and have no need to refer to other peoples opinions as nonsense. I usually rank my opinion against what f others think and have never found the necessity to make offensive comments against those with whom I disagree. I have always accepted that everyone is entitled to an opinion. To date Angela Rayner has never published the basis of the legal advice given.
She could simply have scanned a copy and sent it to the press . The public could then make their own assessment.
In addition she wants to prevent members of the public benefitting from a substantial council house discount from which she herself benefitted. In the circumstances her affairs warrant a much more detailed investigation than that of most people "You've added nothing to the debate so have a nice day.. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken " Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? " Only certain aspects of the media, none that are in the centre and most likely only those on the right to feed the individual bias instead of the facts.. | |||
| |||
"Could she have put the tax bit to bed by sharing the experts view. Possibly. But I also suspect that if it's nuanced then it will be willfully missinterpteted by some. See: the conflation of tax investigation and police investigation. I'd not expect someone to publish a legal view of a case the police are investigating. And once the police have found no case, what's the need. She did nothing wrong. I don't remember the same clamour for publication of evidence from some when zahawi made his "careless mistake". One he was so convinced he hadn't made he got lawyers to try and slap it down. And his error was made while an MP. " The careless mistake so big it was a £5 million fine, that one? | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter." . Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved | |||
"Could she have put the tax bit to bed by sharing the experts view. Possibly. But I also suspect that if it's nuanced then it will be willfully missinterpteted by some. See: the conflation of tax investigation and police investigation. I'd not expect someone to publish a legal view of a case the police are investigating. And once the police have found no case, what's the need. She did nothing wrong. I don't remember the same clamour for publication of evidence from some when zahawi made his "careless mistake". One he was so convinced he hadn't made he got lawyers to try and slap it down. And his error was made while an MP. The careless mistake so big it was a £5 million fine, that one?" Shhhh Criticism of the Tories is not allowed on here as they can do no wrong... | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Only certain aspects of the media, none that are in the centre and most likely only those on the right to feed the individual bias instead of the facts.." . The media have no option but to report facts . It is up to the public how they intrept them | |||
"Could she have put the tax bit to bed by sharing the experts view. Possibly. But I also suspect that if it's nuanced then it will be willfully missinterpteted by some. See: the conflation of tax investigation and police investigation. I'd not expect someone to publish a legal view of a case the police are investigating. And once the police have found no case, what's the need. She did nothing wrong. I don't remember the same clamour for publication of evidence from some when zahawi made his "careless mistake". One he was so convinced he hadn't made he got lawyers to try and slap it down. And his error was made while an MP. " . The difference might be that Angela Raynor wanted to stop the public from benefitting from a benefit from which she herself benefitted. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved " maybe after many many police houts they decide no public interest. Suspect unlikey give it was specific what they were investigating and that call would have been made earlier. But if the relevant authorities have said no case to answer, she owes us nothing. To do so rewards shit stirring. Now when an MP does have a 30pc charge against unpaid taxes for carelessness that should demand explanation. Surely ? | |||
" The difference might be that Angela Raynor wanted to stop the public from benefitting from a benefit from which she herself benefitted. " Angela Rayner received a 25% discount when she bought her council house in 2007, seventeen years ago. Those were the rules at the time. In 2012, twelve years ago, the coalition government increased the discounts to between 30 and 70%. Some believe those are too generous and Labour has suggested it will look at the fairness of this if it becomes the next government in 2024, twelve years after the rules were last changed. There is no suggestion that the current discounts will be reduced, increased or changed. Again, one could be forgiven for thinking you are trying to put a slant on a perfectly acceptable review of council house discounts. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Only certain aspects of the media, none that are in the centre and most likely only those on the right to feed the individual bias instead of the facts... The media have no option but to report facts . It is up to the public how they intrept them " Once again. Hard agree, the media are using this and other non stories, and it'll only get worse as we get closer to the election. | |||
| |||
"Could she have put the tax bit to bed by sharing the experts view. Possibly. But I also suspect that if it's nuanced then it will be willfully missinterpteted by some. See: the conflation of tax investigation and police investigation. I'd not expect someone to publish a legal view of a case the police are investigating. And once the police have found no case, what's the need. She did nothing wrong. I don't remember the same clamour for publication of evidence from some when zahawi made his "careless mistake". One he was so convinced he hadn't made he got lawyers to try and slap it down. And his error was made while an MP. . The difference might be that Angela Raynor wanted to stop the public from benefitting from a benefit from which she herself benefitted. " this had nothing to do with council house discounts. Should zahawi publish details of his careless tax error ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it." Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Only certain aspects of the media, none that are in the centre and most likely only those on the right to feed the individual bias instead of the facts... The media have no option but to report facts . It is up to the public how they intrept them " And what are the facts in this case pat? | |||
| |||
"Good god, we are certainly scra.ping the bottom of the barrel when her attitude to a neighbours ball in her garden is being used. If I was a Conservative party member on here. I would be complaining about the competence of their party troll on Fabswingers. " Ball crime is so not properly addressed by the woke police who simply do not give it the true attention this heinous crime deserves.. Clearly such negligence must be corrected to make Britain great again.. | |||
"Actually pat as you seem to know more than the police, the council and the HMRC why not take out a private prosecution? Or are you as usual talking drivel?" . Another bizarre comment . If someone's version of events differs to yours it now becomes drivel. Just as well most rational people check the validity of their opinions against a variety of sources. At least we do not yet live in a totalitarian state. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Only certain aspects of the media, none that are in the centre and most likely only those on the right to feed the individual bias instead of the facts... The media have no option but to report facts . It is up to the public how they intrept them And what are the facts in this case pat?" . The facts are readily available from a variety of different sources . Maybe look them up yourself and you can choose one which you believe to be impartial. | |||
"Actually pat as you seem to know more than the police, the council and the HMRC why not take out a private prosecution? Or are you as usual talking drivel?. Another bizarre comment . If someone's version of events differs to yours it now becomes drivel. Just as well most rational people check the validity of their opinions against a variety of sources. At least we do not yet live in a totalitarian state. " I think it's when someone's version of events differs from the police, HMRC, and reality. | |||
"Actually pat as you seem to know more than the police, the council and the HMRC why not take out a private prosecution? Or are you as usual talking drivel?. Another bizarre comment . If someone's version of events differs to yours it now becomes drivel. Just as well most rational people check the validity of their opinions against a variety of sources. At least we do not yet live in a totalitarian state. " Not mine pat, publicly available facts you seem to not be able to understand.. Do better.. | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. " what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) " That's why the Court of Public Opinion (COPO) does not reign supreme. Doesn't stop it being a thing though whether it's Zahawi for the Tories, or Rayner for the Labourites. Or bit of cake for Boris, or Sir Flip Flop swigging beer and wolfing curry down at work. If you're right-leaning, in the COPO you find the left guilty and if you're left-leaning, in the COPO you find the right guilty. Repeat to fade..... | |||
"Good god, we are certainly scra.ping the bottom of the barrel when her attitude to a neighbours ball in her garden is being used. If I was a Conservative party member on here. I would be complaining about the competence of their party troll on Fabswingers. " Meanwhile all the non-Conservative party members on FS are delighted at his continuing posting. Just like when Liz Truss opens her mouth. Please encourage him! | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) " . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . | |||
| |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . " Agree with much of what you say. I doubt an 83 year old neighbour would have the energy, immorality or inclination to knowingly making a false statement, under oath if necessary, or knowingly signing a legal document, like a statement to Greater Manchester Police, that is false or includes false comments. For a number of neighbours to wilfully tell untruths in a similar way is for the birds. It's just time barred so their statements can't be taken forwards. The baffling bit is why bother from the get-go? The cost is ridiculous as you say, not to mention diverting detectives from other crimes where there's a realistic prospect of a conviction. There wasn't even the prospect of a hearing here! | |||
"TBF Sleaze is common to all parties that have had power. Labour can't claim to be a shrinking violet on that front. Recall the Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze in 2006? The expenses' scandal? Give Labour 7 years and we'll be talking about it here. "The expenses scandal covered MPs of all political colours. Rayner was targeted as a way to distract attention from the litany of Tory scandal throughout just this Parliament. Yet it’s the Tories who pretend they are whiter than white. | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . " Barristers aren’t honest? Do you care to name any that you feel have been dishonest? | |||
| |||
"TBF Sleaze is common to all parties that have had power. Labour can't claim to be a shrinking violet on that front. Recall the Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze in 2006? The expenses' scandal? Give Labour 7 years and we'll be talking about it here.
The expenses scandal covered MPs of all political colours.
Rayner was targeted as a way to distract attention from the litany of Tory scandal throughout just this Parliament.
Yet it’s the Tories who pretend they are whiter than white. ". I have never seen the Conservatives claim to be whiter than white . A very successfull party would have no need to do that . It is apparent that the neighbours from the house in which Angela Raynor pretended to live were far from happy with this pretense . | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . Barristers aren’t honest? Do you care to name any that you feel have been dishonest? " . . It would probably be easier to name the honest ( if any ) members of the legal profession . Barristers and lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of the public | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . Barristers aren’t honest? Do you care to name any that you feel have been dishonest? . . It would probably be easier to name the honest ( if any ) members of the legal profession . Barristers and lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of the public " In that they work to earn a living? What an amazing thing, wonder if there are any other ways without being a barrister to also do that? | |||
"Even if she had done what the tories accused her of she couldn't be prosecuted as the statute had passed. So this story is dead dead from the start. Only thing left is what the council think or HMRC if HMRC are not doing anything then what are the council going to do as I haven't heard, if they do nothing then this is a dead distracting story, meaningless in fact. She called them scum and they did not like it. Exactly! 6 weeks ago under the thread "Angela Rayner Departure" I wrote "Sources close to Rayner reckon she's pulled off a masterstroke. She's promised to resign if she's prosecuted. She can't be prosecuted. Providing false information is an offence under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the legislation imposes a time limit of a year for bringing any charge. As the allegations surrounding Rayner relate to pre-2015, this means it is highly unlikely she will be prosecuted" I'm sure her 83 year old neighbour speaks for many when she said yesterday "it's bloody ridiculous. I know the truth and so does my son. She was definitely living next door to me and she knows she was". Another 64 year old neighbour reacted with similar sentiments. It matters not a jot due to the legal time bar. It's entirely feasible that the Police would otherwise liked the CPS to have taken action and tested this in the Courts. But they just cannot. That means only the Court of Public Opinion is left. And personal political beliefs will affect that. Time to move on. what a waste of everyone's time if they truely were investigating something that was time barred. You'd hope that a Tory MP would have been aware too before complaining. Thing is, the court of public opinion neither has all the facts the police have, nor the legal knowledge, to make a judgement. Of course they will. I'm guessing most wouldnt even know what was being investigated (based on comments on tax and also discounts) . The only people responsible for public money , time and resources being spent on the matter are Angela Raynor and Kier Starmer. The neighbours ( though not a neighbour as Angela lived at a different address) have an entirely different version of events compared to those of the politicians concerned . Kier Starmer is a barrister so hardly the most honest of people. The legal profession are out to line their own pockets . When the allegations first came to light all Angela Rayner had to do was make a public statement explaining exactly where she lived and when . In addition the names of those who lived at the address under investigation should also have been supplied. Her evidence could have been backed up by bank statements , utility bills, car registration details and membership of various clubs . Her statement about seeking legal advice is completely meaningless. What advice was she given , by which firm and where is the supporting evidence? Just because certain events are statue barred does not mean she should not be required to explain them to members of the public in detail. She certainly thinks a lot of herself and spent a considerable amount of money on a boob job using borrowed money . In addition she referred to other MPs as scum and had to subsequently apologise . Agree with much of what you say. I doubt an 83 year old neighbour would have the energy, immorality or inclination to knowingly making a false statement, under oath if necessary, or knowingly signing a legal document, like a statement to Greater Manchester Police, that is false or includes false comments. For a number of neighbours to wilfully tell untruths in a similar way is for the birds. It's just time barred so their statements can't be taken forwards. The baffling bit is why bother from the get-go? The cost is ridiculous as you say, not to mention diverting detectives from other crimes where there's a realistic prospect of a conviction. There wasn't even the prospect of a hearing here!" if the time barring is true (have we seen confirmed what they were investigating) this raises bigger questions for me. Both on the person raising the complaint (normally, Id pass over this, but the person in question likely knows it's time barred) and teh police themselves. Imo it brings questions about impartiality. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved " Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"She's still a gobshite. Onky writing this to upset some of you "I would agree, they all have them though.. Political attack 'dogs' who get under ones opponents skin.. She's said herself 'I'm marmite'.. She's certainly living in the heads of some on here.. | |||
"She's still a gobshite. Onky writing this to upset some of you
I would agree, they all have them though..
Political attack 'dogs' who get under ones opponents skin..
She's said herself 'I'm marmite'..
She's certainly living in the heads of some on here.. "Of course they all have them. The Tories more than most. Although, maybe The Greens are catching them. | |||
"She's still a gobshite. Onky writing this to upset some of you
I would agree, they all have them though..
Political attack 'dogs' who get under ones opponents skin..
She's said herself 'I'm marmite'..
She's certainly living in the heads of some on here..
Of course they all have them. The Tories more than most. Although, maybe The Greens are catching them. "They've upped their game in that area, interesting that they're taking a leaf etc.. not sure the Lib Dems will ever be taken seriously if they go in that direction .. | |||
"She's still a gobshite. Onky writing this to upset some of you "LOLZ | |||
"Also you gotta love the repeated references to the age of the neighbours! What’s that about? Is this some kind of way of using society’s supposed respect for our elders as a proxy for being able to trust what they say. As if it would be unthinkable the neighbours could have an agenda or be persuaded to take a certain position under influence of others! You know, ‘cos they are old! Reminds me of Catherine Tate’s Nan sketches! " It's staunch Labour where she lived (wherever that was, they're only 2 miles apart) so any 'agenda' would likely work in her favour! You should value, embrace and trust the over 50s! Celebrate it when the big '5 0' arrives! Can't be that far away? Meet up with a few? I find the over 50s a great cohort. One day soon, you'll be hoping people think that too!! | |||
"Also you gotta love the repeated references to the age of the neighbours! What’s that about? Is this some kind of way of using society’s supposed respect for our elders as a proxy for being able to trust what they say. As if it would be unthinkable the neighbours could have an agenda or be persuaded to take a certain position under influence of others! You know, ‘cos they are old! Reminds me of Catherine Tate’s Nan sketches! It's staunch Labour where she lived (wherever that was, they're only 2 miles apart) so any 'agenda' would likely work in her favour! You should value, embrace and trust the over 50s! Celebrate it when the big '5 0' arrives! Can't be that far away? Meet up with a few? I find the over 50s a great cohort. One day soon, you'll be hoping people think that too!! " I think you completely and utterly missed my point! Oh well  | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind!" You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries " Your comments certainly keep me entertained! You have a fantastic grasp of the absurd and write as if you believe what you are actually saying. Good on you for keeping up the pretence! | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries " as Dan niedle pointed out If it was deliberate, he’d be prosecuted for criminal tax evasion. HMRC “concluding” it wasn’t criminal isn’t a ringing endorsement. 30% penalties don’t get charged for being on the wrong side of obscure technical points. He was “careless”. What does that mean? Well, it’s easy to not be “careless”: instruct proper advisers, give them all the information relevant to your tax return, follow their advice, and check your tax return (as best as you reasonably can). Then, even if your advisers turn out to have been complete idiots, the law and HMRC will agree that you weren’t careless. So we now know for a fact Zahawi didn’t do this. We can’t know for sure what went wrong but, under the circumstances, my view (and that of most other experts I’ve spoken to) is that the most likely scenario is that he received somewhere around £27m, didn’t obtain proper advice, and didn’t declare it to HMRC. He did all this on a 27m payout rather than selling a house. And through setting up offshore companies and transferring shares to his old man. Why he though this was legit I don't know. It wasn't. He paid a penalty. Plus he told porkies along the way. And tried to slapp people down. Whats good for the gobby goose is good for the gander. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries " Hmmm are you really trying to claim that a multi-millionaire businessman fills in his own self assessment? I don’t my accountant does mine. They are paid to not make mistakes! It was evasion but he got off lightly and he paid his fine. | |||
"It's great to have a line drawn underneath it, so that the party which looks likely to be in government can be most effective for us " I think it's hilarious people still believe any party gets into power with the intention of being effective for the general public. That's some childlike belief to hold | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Hmmm are you really trying to claim that a multi-millionaire businessman fills in his own self assessment? I don’t my accountant does mine. They are paid to not make mistakes! It was evasion but he got off lightly and he paid his fine." it wouldnt have been under his SA a so understand it. My guess is he's been given off the record advice so it's fallen on him as careless rather than having recourse to blame his accountant. As otherwise surely he would have said he'd have expert tax opinion it was legit. And of course be willing to publish it. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Hmmm are you really trying to claim that a multi-millionaire businessman fills in his own self assessment? I don’t my accountant does mine. They are paid to not make mistakes! It was evasion but he got off lightly and he paid his fine. it wouldnt have been under his SA a so understand it. My guess is he's been given off the record advice so it's fallen on him as careless rather than having recourse to blame his accountant. As otherwise surely he would have said he'd have expert tax opinion it was legit. And of course be willing to publish it. " | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Your comments certainly keep me entertained! You have a fantastic grasp of the absurd and write as if you believe what you are actually saying. Good on you for keeping up the pretence!" It's not absurd. We had a fantastic, world-beating start to the vaccination programme and Zahawi and others were instrumental in succeeding on this. Most reasonable people know this. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Your comments certainly keep me entertained! You have a fantastic grasp of the absurd and write as if you believe what you are actually saying. Good on you for keeping up the pretence! It's not absurd. We had a fantastic, world-beating start to the vaccination programme and Zahawi and others were instrumental in succeeding on this. Most reasonable people know this. " almost got a full house here! We got a good start because of the smart people in our unis got the lead in the race. Imo, the political element was minor compated to this. | |||
| |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Your comments certainly keep me entertained! You have a fantastic grasp of the absurd and write as if you believe what you are actually saying. Good on you for keeping up the pretence! It's not absurd. We had a fantastic, world-beating start to the vaccination programme and Zahawi and others were instrumental in succeeding on this. Most reasonable people know this. almost got a full house here! We got a good start because of the smart people in our unis got the lead in the race. Imo, the political element was minor compated to this. " Full house? Do you think it was "smart" university types who took the bold decisions to order vaccines early, before we knew if they would be effective, and to vary from the manufacturers’ recommendations by extending the ‘prime-boost’ interval between the first and second doses of the AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines? These Government decisions were controversial at the time but contributed enormously to the effectiveness of the vaccination programme and it was Brexit that meant we weren't tied to the lethargy of the EU response. A very brave decision was made by the Tory Government who pledged to support the development of vaccines by committing to purchasing vaccines extremely early in their development. This decision was not, repeat not, taken by people at University! Public Health England estimated that, up until the end of March 2021, vaccination directly prevented 10,400 deaths in England alone and likely prevented more through indirect protection (preventing people from being infectious). Real-world (surveillance) data demonstrated the effectiveness of the vaccines using the UK’s 12-week booster strategy and this has been supported by laboratory findings. Booking an appointment was an easy process that could be made online or via telephone, without the need for a GP consultation. By comparison, individuals in France had to see their GPs five days before getting the jab and give their written consent after being informed of side effects. Do you think that was down to students? The Govt made sure that every person had a vaccination center within 10 miles of their home. Students organised this? The Armed Forces transported doses around the country and identified areas not covered by the vaccination network. There were also 21 quick reaction forces on standby that could be deployed to hospitals, local vaccination services and mass vaccination centers if the NHS needed extra hands. Students organised this? The Govt devised a communications campaign to tackle misinformation and misgivings among some people about taking the vaccine. Do you think students helped here? It could only be in Britain that some of its citizens massively downplay all this, heaping huge praise on academia and savaging the Govt involvement as "minor". Unbelievable. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved Oh wow…I wish I could be bothered to dig back and pull out all your defences for the likes of Johnson, Zahawi (sp?) et al. Cookie cutter hypocrisy comes to mind! You forgot to mention that in the case of Zahawi it was a non deliberate careless mistake. He has also undertaken a job which was crucial to saving lives, namely overseeing the rollout of the covid 19 vaccination programme . Under his leadership the UK programme raced ahead of many other countries Your comments certainly keep me entertained! You have a fantastic grasp of the absurd and write as if you believe what you are actually saying. Good on you for keeping up the pretence! It's not absurd. We had a fantastic, world-beating start to the vaccination programme and Zahawi and others were instrumental in succeeding on this. Most reasonable people know this. " Most reasonable people know it was only the vaccine rollout (which they grasped like a drowning person grabs a life raft) that they got right .. Extremely limited options and presented with a possible solution they had no choice .. If many other areas of the pandemic had been only handled half competently several thousands of lives needlessly lost might have been saved.. | |||
" If she was innocent why did she not publish how much she paid for the house,how much she spent on repairs and what addreses her various bills were sent to. ? What address did HMRC have on their records ? With this information the public could make a realistic assessment of how much capital gains tax ( if any) was due on the sale. She is probably extremely lucky that no further action was taken Are you really suggesting that the public and the media should decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty? Let's repeat yet again: The Police, the Local Authority, and HMRC have ALL said she has done nothing wrong and has no case to answer. No ambiguity, no lingering doubt. Politically she and Labour are the undoubted winners in this. Nobody likes it when false allegations are made about them (see your reaction to comnents made about you!) and how one reacts is a personal matter.. Just because nofurther action is taken does not mean someone is in the clear. It may simply mean that . It may simply mean that it is not in the public interest to prosecute or that the resources available do not justify the time and effort to prosecute. In this case Angela Rayner wants to remove a council house discount available to tenants from which she personally benefitted but wants to prevent others from doing so. He is a total hypocrite . In addition she referred to some members of parliament as scum and had to apologise. Her neighbours have a very different versions of events to her. She also adapted a very aggressive attitude when a neighbour wanted to remove a ball from her garden. In the circumstances the public and entitled to a detailed explanation from her relation to the house. Where were her bills sent to and how were they paid . ? What address was registered with HMRC and her bank. ? How much did she spend in repairs on the house ? Which items were of a capital nature and which were expenses? How were utiliy bills treated? At which address was her driving licence and passport registered to. ? If she were to answer all these questions the public would have a better understanding of the issues involved " Keep digging Pat. Australia is not the far down. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty." . Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , " You are so far down the rabbit hole Pat you no longer even recognise the hypocrisy in your own posts! | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , " What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory? | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?" . Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. " TL;Dr one required a settlement. The other didn't. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. " Please reveal your source that Zahawi has been "transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement". Also please give the date when Angela Rayner became a minister? Zahawi was sacked because he didn't disclose he was being investigated by HMRC when Boris appointed him Chancellor of the Exchequer. Zahawi went on to support Lettuce Liz as opposed to Sunak who when finally appointed as leader of the Tories, sacked him. Transparancy my arse! | |||
| |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , " Most reasonable people know that he was so not going to contest it, he paid up because he was likely advised he would lose and have to pay costs.. Most normal people know an innocent man doesn't pay a fine to prevent further costs and the public embarrassment of his status, sensible people know he was bang to rights.. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! "It's almost like the person is out of touch with reality.. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , Most reasonable people know that he was so not going to contest it, he paid up because he was likely advised he would lose and have to pay costs.. Most normal people know an innocent man doesn't pay a fine to prevent further costs and the public embarrassment of his status, sensible people know he was bang to rights.." maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't under investigation. Or try and slapp people down calling it libel. All a bit embarrassing imo. But I agree. It's better to pay a charge than face criminal prosecition. As by all accounts he as at that end of the scale. I do love this place. No findings of wrong doing. Guilty. 30pc charge on tax after investigation. Innocent fella being sensible. We are still awaiting his legal view on why he is innocent tho. Been a while. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. Please reveal your source that Zahawi has been "transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement". Also please give the date when Angela Rayner became a minister? Zahawi was sacked because he didn't disclose he was being investigated by HMRC when Boris appointed him Chancellor of the Exchequer. Zahawi went on to support Lettuce Liz as opposed to Sunak who when finally appointed as leader of the Tories, sacked him. Transparancy my arse!" . You appear to be totally confused. An HRMC investigation and what he choose to disclose to the Prime Minister are two entirely different concepts. Intersting use of language at the end of the question . | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! "You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time | |||
| |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , Most reasonable people know that he was so not going to contest it, he paid up because he was likely advised he would lose and have to pay costs.. Most normal people know an innocent man doesn't pay a fine to prevent further costs and the public embarrassment of his status, sensible people know he was bang to rights..maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't under investigation. Or try and slapp people down calling it libel. All a bit embarrassing imo. But I agree. It's better to pay a charge than face criminal prosecition. As by all accounts he as at that end of the scale. I do love this place. No findings of wrong doing. Guilty. 30pc charge on tax after investigation. Innocent fella being sensible. We are still awaiting his legal view on why he is innocent tho. Been a while. "I've reread the post ... I total miss read. Pls ignore my reply !! | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. " And there'll much more of this if ever Labour are allowed near the levers of power. | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. And there'll much more of this if ever Labour are allowed near the levers of power. " what is "this" that there will be more of ? | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time "You don’t do irony do you Pat? | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. And there'll much more of this if ever Labour are allowed near the levers of power. " What? | |||
"Gotta love how because someone happened to be the Minister at the time (it could have been any of them) he gets a pass for what was clearly an attempt at tax evasion but with sufficient plausible deniability to just warrant a slap on the wrist because he could afford the penalty.. Would you have preferred if he had contested the case , potentially HMRC could have lost and the tax payer ended up with nothing. ? There are lots of situations in life where you have to compromise , What about a compromise when the police & HMRC found that no wrongdoing happened. Yet the individual accused is guilty of not being a Tory?. Two completely different scenarios. One is fully transparent and we have detailed information on the settlement. In thd other case the public have been fobbed off by claiming that the minister concerned sought legal advice but no attempt made to publish the advice in order that the public could verify its validity. And there'll much more of this if ever Labour are allowed near the levers of power. " Don't worry, no political party offering any real change will be allowed anywhere near power. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time "Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.."That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?"It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile. "No searching required pat, you've so many you answered one thread with two different names.. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?
It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge...
"And bizarrely they think Rishi is a traitor and Truss did a good job, with no evidence for either claim.. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
No searching required pat, you've so many you answered one thread with two different names.. "Ah the Grant Shapps, Michael Green, Corrine Stockheath and Sebastian Fox of Fabswingers..... | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
No searching required pat, you've so many you answered one thread with two different names..
Ah the Grant Shapps, Michael Green, Corrine Stockheath and Sebastian Fox of Fabswingers....."Did they forget who they were mid post too? | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile. "Oh Pat come on. We ALL know you have had different profiles over the years. | |||
"After the rabid imposition to the police, after they'd finished their work, Angela Rayner and supporters can breathe a sigh of relief. No further action to be taken, after a team of about 12 police staff spent weeks of their time diverted to this, from other activities that the public might prefer them to investigate for the first time. " The real question is why has the father allegedly 17 years old at the time, of Rayner first child never been prosecuted for having sex with a minor??? Angela Rayner was 15 years old when she got pregnant??? How come this is never mentioned?? | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
No searching required pat, you've so many you answered one thread with two different names.. ". This post is bizarre . How many rational people would spend their spare time trying to analyse if someone has more than one profile .? I am glad that my spare time is usually spent in a more constructive manner and in contact with real people, not browsing this website for anomalies. | |||
"After the rabid imposition to the police, after they'd finished their work, Angela Rayner and supporters can breathe a sigh of relief. No further action to be taken, after a team of about 12 police staff spent weeks of their time diverted to this, from other activities that the public might prefer them to investigate for the first time. The real question is why has the father allegedly 17 years old at the time, of Rayner first child never been prosecuted for having sex with a minor??? Angela Rayner was 15 years old when she got pregnant??? How come this is never mentioned??" . A very interesting question , let's hope someone knows the answer. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?
It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge...
"It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
Oh Pat come on. We ALL know you have had different profiles over the years.".Another bizarre post . It is an interesting admission as to how some members spend their spare time . | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
No searching required pat, you've so many you answered one thread with two different names.. . This post is bizarre . How many rational people would spend their spare time trying to analyse if someone has more than one profile .? I am glad that my spare time is usually spent in a more constructive manner and in contact with real people, not browsing this website for anomalies. "Someone who has three concurrent profiles probably spends a bit more time in here that those with just one pat but that's ok.. They might just need to concentrate in which one they have open in a particular forum
Most normal people would know that.. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?
It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge...
It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers ."Getting elected was the achievement, meanwhile the utter failure to represent the interests of British people was what? | |||
| |||
"[Removed by poster at 01/06/24 22:18:46]" Welcome diff lock, how's pat tonight? | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?
It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge...
It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers .
Getting elected was the achievement, meanwhile the utter failure to represent the interests of British people was what? ". Exit from the EU , a Covid vaccination programme ahead of Europe and support to Ukraine . Such was his success that the doubters and haters spent an enormous amount of time trying to pick any minor fault. | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers ." Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
You don’t do irony do you Pat?
It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge...
It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers ."Pffft Blair had a 179 majority in 1997! | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
Oh Pat come on. We ALL know you have had different profiles over the years..Another bizarre post . It is an interesting admission as to how some members spend their spare time . "You REALLY don’t get irony Pat | |||
"[Removed by poster at 01/06/24 22:18:46] Welcome diff lock, how's pat tonight?" OMG that is hilarious | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures...." Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. " Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge. | |||
"Horribly fascinating watching people dying on a hill isn’t it! You do realise that this is a fantasy world . What matters is what happens in real life. When you see the amount of time a few posters spend on here you so begin to wonder if they have a real life or maybe have become detached from reality. Real life matters are crucial, posts in here are irrelevant . The only benefit is to pass idle time
Says the man with several current profiles..
Come on pat, Diff lock, tractors and trailers, _orses and ponies.. That is quite an admission to make. Not only do you spend time trying to work out if someone has more than one profile , you choose to post the fact on this site as well. I cannot see many if any people attempting to search the site to identify who has more than one profile.
Oh Pat come on. We ALL know you have had different profiles over the years..Another bizarre post . It is an interesting admission as to how some members spend their spare time .
You REALLY don’t get irony Pat "Imagine analysing how you spent your day. Most people will have done something positive that helps society and other people I have driven 180 miles , taken someone to a hospital driven back and helped someone who is housebound. Lots of people will have worked extremely hard, store staff in Tesco , NHS staff and a wide variety of other occupations. We then have a member who spends his time not only trying to check if someone has more than one profile but in addition posts the results of his checks on this forum . You would think that most rational people could undertake their own checks ( not that many if any people would spend their spare time checking profiles.) I guess you learn something new everyday . Imagine openly admitting to checking profiles in case they are duplicates .. . | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge." . I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . | |||
"[Removed by poster at 01/06/24 22:18:46] Welcome diff lock, how's pat tonight? OMG that is hilarious" | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . " Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? " Is spending time in the area every week any good ? Shopping locally. ? Talking to people who live in the area . Maybe you can advise what criteria need to be fulfilled before being allowed to comment. Do you only want comments from those who agree who your opinion. ? | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? Is spending time in the area every week any good ? Shopping locally. ? Talking to people who live in the area . Maybe you can advise what criteria need to be fulfilled before being allowed to comment. Do you only want comments from those who agree who your opinion. ?" So you live in Ealing but spend a lot of time in South West Norfolk? Convenient but I will have to believe you. I enjoy a good debate and welcome all views for a polite exchange of ideas. So all these people you speak to. What are they saying? Here’s a few I found with a simple Google Search of local papers… “Max Wiseman, a 34-year-old chartered surveyor from the village of Northwold, describes himself as “Tory for sure”, yet even he said it was “game over” for the 48-year-old MP, who has represented South West Norfolk since 2010. “I reckon she should call it a day, to be honest,” he said. “I just think all of her policies, they weren’t well received and I think seeing her in the media since her tenure, she’s so naive. I don’t think she genuinely thinks she did anything wrong.” Mr Wiseman said he would probably vote for the independent running against Ms Truss, a 71-year-old retired barrister and solicitor called James Bagge.” And… “Mr Bagge branded Ms Truss’s time in 10 Downing Street as “catastrophic” and said that she “shows no genuine interest in the affairs of this constituency” and instead continues “to have political ambitions here in the UK and abroad”.” And… ““She’s not really proven herself as an international heavyweight. She’s not a great speaker,” he said. “Maybe she does hold a hope to return to frontline politics or be a kingmaker.” If Ms Truss continues to harbour political ambitions, she can probably only achieve them if she wins South West Norfolk again in July. Will her local record be enough to secure her another term as an MP? Prof Finlayson said that if her campaign goes smoothly, her chances of re-election are fairly good, at 70:30 in her favour. But if Mr Bagge succeeds in attracting voters who would normally support the Conservatives, “the anti-Truss vote could align against her”.” And… “In Downham Market, a picturesque small town in the constituency, on the edge of the flat, low-lying Fens agricultural region, even some residents who would normally happily vote for the Conservatives are adamant that they will not mark an X next to Ms Truss's name on polling day.” So not exactly ringing endorsement that you imply. Staunch Tories will vote for her still but looks like it is far from certain going into the GE! | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? Is spending time in the area every week any good ? Shopping locally. ? Talking to people who live in the area . Maybe you can advise what criteria need to be fulfilled before being allowed to comment. Do you only want comments from those who agree who your opinion. ? So you live in Ealing but spend a lot of time in South West Norfolk? Convenient but I will have to believe you. I enjoy a good debate and welcome all views for a polite exchange of ideas. So all these people you speak to. What are they saying? Here’s a few I found with a simple Google Search of local papers… “Max Wiseman, a 34-year-old chartered surveyor from the village of Northwold, describes himself as “Tory for sure”, yet even he said it was “game over” for the 48-year-old MP, who has represented South West Norfolk since 2010. “I reckon she should call it a day, to be honest,” he said. “I just think all of her policies, they weren’t well received and I think seeing her in the media since her tenure, she’s so naive. I don’t think she genuinely thinks she did anything wrong.” Mr Wiseman said he would probably vote for the independent running against Ms Truss, a 71-year-old retired barrister and solicitor called James Bagge.” And… “Mr Bagge branded Ms Truss’s time in 10 Downing Street as “catastrophic” and said that she “shows no genuine interest in the affairs of this constituency” and instead continues “to have political ambitions here in the UK and abroad”.” And… ““She’s not really proven herself as an international heavyweight. She’s not a great speaker,” he said. “Maybe she does hold a hope to return to frontline politics or be a kingmaker.” If Ms Truss continues to harbour political ambitions, she can probably only achieve them if she wins South West Norfolk again in July. Will her local record be enough to secure her another term as an MP? Prof Finlayson said that if her campaign goes smoothly, her chances of re-election are fairly good, at 70:30 in her favour. But if Mr Bagge succeeds in attracting voters who would normally support the Conservatives, “the anti-Truss vote could align against her”.” And… “In Downham Market, a picturesque small town in the constituency, on the edge of the flat, low-lying Fens agricultural region, even some residents who would normally happily vote for the Conservatives are adamant that they will not mark an X next to Ms Truss's name on polling day.” So not exactly ringing endorsement that you imply. Staunch Tories will vote for her still but looks like it is far from certain going into the GE!" . Interesting as those comments are they are hardly a true reflection of public opinion as everyone is critical of her . There is only one opinion that counts and mine is irrelevant . We should know at roughly 2 pm on July 5 what the local electorate think . | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? Is spending time in the area every week any good ? Shopping locally. ? Talking to people who live in the area . Maybe you can advise what criteria need to be fulfilled before being allowed to comment. Do you only want comments from those who agree who your opinion. ? So you live in Ealing but spend a lot of time in South West Norfolk? Convenient but I will have to believe you. I enjoy a good debate and welcome all views for a polite exchange of ideas. So all these people you speak to. What are they saying? Here’s a few I found with a simple Google Search of local papers… “Max Wiseman, a 34-year-old chartered surveyor from the village of Northwold, describes himself as “Tory for sure”, yet even he said it was “game over” for the 48-year-old MP, who has represented South West Norfolk since 2010. “I reckon she should call it a day, to be honest,” he said. “I just think all of her policies, they weren’t well received and I think seeing her in the media since her tenure, she’s so naive. I don’t think she genuinely thinks she did anything wrong.” Mr Wiseman said he would probably vote for the independent running against Ms Truss, a 71-year-old retired barrister and solicitor called James Bagge.” And… “Mr Bagge branded Ms Truss’s time in 10 Downing Street as “catastrophic” and said that she “shows no genuine interest in the affairs of this constituency” and instead continues “to have political ambitions here in the UK and abroad”.” And… ““She’s not really proven herself as an international heavyweight. She’s not a great speaker,” he said. “Maybe she does hold a hope to return to frontline politics or be a kingmaker.” If Ms Truss continues to harbour political ambitions, she can probably only achieve them if she wins South West Norfolk again in July. Will her local record be enough to secure her another term as an MP? Prof Finlayson said that if her campaign goes smoothly, her chances of re-election are fairly good, at 70:30 in her favour. But if Mr Bagge succeeds in attracting voters who would normally support the Conservatives, “the anti-Truss vote could align against her”.” And… “In Downham Market, a picturesque small town in the constituency, on the edge of the flat, low-lying Fens agricultural region, even some residents who would normally happily vote for the Conservatives are adamant that they will not mark an X next to Ms Truss's name on polling day.” So not exactly ringing endorsement that you imply. Staunch Tories will vote for her still but looks like it is far from certain going into the GE!" . Thank you for posting your analysis . It is interesting . The opinions of the barrister I will consign to the dust bin . Others are noted and observed However in view of your comment I looked up the result of the last election. Liz Truss 35,097 votes or 69 % of the electorate. Labour polled 18 %. It looks like she is a much admired and respected MP. Unbeatable , check the result on July 5 th at 2am | |||
" It's the lack of self-awareness that amuses me. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson and Lord Frost are exactly the same. You would think they would want to crawl under the nearest desk or hide in a fridge... It looks like some posters on here are unable to recognise success. Boris Johnsin winning an 80 seat majority was the achievement of a life time, Lizz Truss has an incredibly successfull career and given time her policie would have succeeded . All the politicians to whom you refer had exceptionally succesfull careers . Boris Johnson won in 2019 without any significant increase in the Conservative's share of the overall vote from what Theresa May achieved in 2017. 43.5% compared to 42.4%. It was a single issue vote, with UKIP agreeing to support the Tories. He won tbe 80 seat majority because the Labour vote collapsed under Corbyn. He then culled the Tories of any talent, bodged Brexit, dithered over everything including Covid and eventually his own party sacked him and replaced him with Lettuce Liz, who rightly or wrongly has become the national laughing stock, synonymous with total failure. And Rishi is going to pay dearly for their total failures.... Regardless of how you want to present it the 2019 election result was a stunning success for Boris . He battled against those who attempted to obstruct Brexit despite the will of the people. The Covid programme was extremely succesfull , saved many lives and others from financial ruin . It is ill mannered to refer to Lizz Truss as a lettuce . Had we stuck to her ideas and policies we would be in a much better position now. She was out canvassing locally today. Just as well most people are not so ill mannered that they see the need to refer to her as a laughing stock . We can safely assume that she is more educated and intelligent than most of us. She is a qualified accountant and had a successful career at Shell Mex. Academically fairly intelligent. Totally lacking in Emotional Intelligence. Socially awkward. Tufton St stooge.. I do not think the locals would agree with your assessment. We can check her result on election night. That is the only one that matters . Is she in a safe Tory seat? I strongly suspect most who vote Tory in that constituency are more interested in party than MP. Saying that they’ll probably know you spell Liz with one “Z” Also how do you know what the locals think about her or whether they would agree with my assessment? Is spending time in the area every week any good ? Shopping locally. ? Talking to people who live in the area . Maybe you can advise what criteria need to be fulfilled before being allowed to comment. Do you only want comments from those who agree who your opinion. ? So you live in Ealing but spend a lot of time in South West Norfolk? Convenient but I will have to believe you. I enjoy a good debate and welcome all views for a polite exchange of ideas. So all these people you speak to. What are they saying? Here’s a few I found with a simple Google Search of local papers… “Max Wiseman, a 34-year-old chartered surveyor from the village of Northwold, describes himself as “Tory for sure”, yet even he said it was “game over” for the 48-year-old MP, who has represented South West Norfolk since 2010. “I reckon she should call it a day, to be honest,” he said. “I just think all of her policies, they weren’t well received and I think seeing her in the media since her tenure, she’s so naive. I don’t think she genuinely thinks she did anything wrong.” Mr Wiseman said he would probably vote for the independent running against Ms Truss, a 71-year-old retired barrister and solicitor called James Bagge.” And… “Mr Bagge branded Ms Truss’s time in 10 Downing Street as “catastrophic” and said that she “shows no genuine interest in the affairs of this constituency” and instead continues “to have political ambitions here in the UK and abroad”.” And… ““She’s not really proven herself as an international heavyweight. She’s not a great speaker,” he said. “Maybe she does hold a hope to return to frontline politics or be a kingmaker.” If Ms Truss continues to harbour political ambitions, she can probably only achieve them if she wins South West Norfolk again in July. Will her local record be enough to secure her another term as an MP? Prof Finlayson said that if her campaign goes smoothly, her chances of re-election are fairly good, at 70:30 in her favour. But if Mr Bagge succeeds in attracting voters who would normally support the Conservatives, “the anti-Truss vote could align against her”.” And… “In Downham Market, a picturesque small town in the constituency, on the edge of the flat, low-lying Fens agricultural region, even some residents who would normally happily vote for the Conservatives are adamant that they will not mark an X next to Ms Truss's name on polling day.” So not exactly ringing endorsement that you imply. Staunch Tories will vote for her still but looks like it is far from certain going into the GE!. Thank you for posting your analysis . It is interesting . The opinions of the barrister I will consign to the dust bin . Others are noted and observed However in view of your comment I looked up the result of the last election. Liz Truss 35,097 votes or 69 % of the electorate. Labour polled 18 %. It looks like she is a much admired and respected MP. Unbeatable , check the result on July 5 th at 2am " As I said, a safe Tory seat. Losing it would be hugely embarrassing but I doubt even Liz Truss could be THAT rubbish! Could she? | |||
